Free will is real

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 515
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by Atla » Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:57 am

Serendipper wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:42 am
I think that's an immoral diagnosis.
Dogmatically.
What were the odds that I knew you'd say that?
We can't discuss literally everything in one comment, there is such a thing as context boundary. You say I was dogmatic, immoral. Okay I say you take concepts from different contexts and mix them together, to refute things I didn't write. And you don't actually provide good explanations for what you claim.
And how is 10^300 other universes a solution?
It's a possible solution, but it's unproven of course.
What is the guiding mechanism that determined the subject/object relationship? Was it discovered or planned? Did it just so happen to work that way or was it made to work that way? Duality was the first truth discovered; it had to be because everything is based on that. True/false, on/off, plus/minus. Why would it be any other way?

From there it was an evolutionary process of what worked, worked and what didn't, fell apart and ceased existence. Maybe there were competing trialities or quadalities that didn't compete as well. Maybe instead of charge being divided into 2, there was plus, minus, and something else and that just didn't work.

So once duality was the dominant form, it became the environment that selected what came next: matter/antimatter, positive/negative, up/down.

Matter that didn't attract other matter did not work; it died out and ceased existence. Matter that had gravity worked and became dominant.
You are totally mixing together human-made dichotomies with naturally occuring pairs like matter-antimatter.

This is one of the biggest philosophical mistakes. Fundamentally speaking there are no dichotomies like subject/object or true/false. Back in the day they "discovered" this absolute "truth", and Western philosophy got based on it, which is why it's breaking down now. There is absolutely no evidence for a subject/object division in physics.

Natural dualism is also half true because things do seem to come in pairs in physics. Does it apply to everything in our universe? Maybe so, but I doubt it's proven yet. Let's say it's that way, for the sake of argument.

But you are taking massive leaps of faith. Why do things come in pairs in our universe in the first place? That seems to arbitrary, maybe that too is already one of infinitely many possibilities. Maybe in other universes it does come in 3s or 4s or not a whole number. Or is a chaotic mixture of completely random things.

To me, natural pairs of 2 seems to be a minimalistic construct that's all. So it already might be an end product of a large, possibly infinite "iteration".

So you take the already unexplained "duality" and then use backwards thinking from there. "Duality" becomes an actor that makes selections. You give it a power it can't have. What does that even mean?

What does it mean "what worked"? Who or what decides what works? Works for whom and in what sense? Why does our current universe "work" and other universes don't? You aren't actually explaining anything. Or you use what is to be explained, as explanation.

Why would the physical world care about what should become dominant?
Who knows how many iterations it took just to get that far. Maybe the universe formed and fell apart 10^300 times before the first atom was formed. Who could say?
Wait.. but that IS a multiverse to me. Then what are you arguing against?
I was telling Greta the other day that life probably evolved with no idea how to reproduce. Well how would it know how to? So there must have been oodles of lifeforms popping into existence in a short time until, by chance, one of them figured out how to reproduce and then it became dominant due to that advantage.
Why are we programmed to die? Well probably because the first lifeforms that could reproduce also didn't die, so they ate all their food and went extinct. Now we need a lifeform that manages to figure out, by chance, how to reproduce and also have a finite lifespan in order to be in harmony with their finite environment.
Maybe the first lifeforms were immortal, and so death had to be invented for evolution to take place. That lead here. But again you are using the end result to explain the end result. The question is, WHY this and only this end result out of the infinite possibilities?
But by your reasoning and MWI, the organisms that didn't survive went to live in other universes. And in those universes, the organisms that didn't survive went to live in yet other universes. The triality that didn't happen here, happened in another universe. The matter that doesn't have gravity must exist in another universe.
Okay first, you don't seem to understand that the MWI multiverse only describes all the possible outcomes of OUR universe.
The MWI multiverse isn't the same thing as what's usually meant by multiverse. What's usually meant refers to universes that are different from ours, in a sense "outside" it.

Second, the MWI comes in variations. Some people literally break up the universal wavefunction into separate, branching universes, as I said I think that's crazy. I don't see any separation inside the universal wavefunction, so I think we see the sum of it from our point of view.

Third, you can't "go" from one universe to another as far as I know. And surviving or not surviving per se has nothing to do with anything, those are also just part of all the possible states. Yes in our universe AND our version of this universe , everything is right for self-aware huamns. And in the vast majority of the possible outcomes of our universe, probably there is no life. And in almost all other universes, probably there is no life. And in very rare cases there may be more advanced life than here.
Why have it that way instead of things just ceasing to exist?

If I flip a coin and it lands heads, why does it have to land tails in another universe? Why can't that outcome simply not manifest?
Again, what is this magic or hidden mechanism you keep referring to that decides what should and shouldn't exist?

Belinda
Posts: 1844
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by Belinda » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:13 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:41 pm
The probability of something happening once it happens is 100%. The probability of throwing 100 heads in a row is .5^100 but once it happens it is 100%.
I like your explanation and I find it easy to understand probability compared with the difficulty I have with possibility,

One image which I have of possibility involves a cinema projectionist, a screen reflecting projected images, and the cinema which is possibility. The cinema i.e. possibility isn't alone as it exists within a social, technological, and economic system. This system exists within the sorts of stuff that physics deals in.

Obviously something is happening and I wonder if what has happened necessarily happened and will happen. Science is deterministic in this sense that what happened necessarily happened and science predicts with inductive reason aided by mathematics. Serendipper's story about long and short legged deer,, besides introducing natural selection generally , shows that the short legged deer was eaten while the long- legged one ran away. Probability is easy to understand.

Necessity and possibility are not easy to analyse. God is a deterministic force Who can often intervene in His own mechanisms with miracles and men's dispensation of Free Will. Pantheists' Nature is also deterministic but without miracles. So whence possibility? I'm a pantheist so for me possibility is only an insubstantial idea that bears on interpretation of narratives and on predicting and which although of practical use for heuristic purposes is not real. Thinking of my image that I drew of the cinema , once the cinema is understood as an arbitrarily limited function of what is the case , the cinema as an image is seen to be a heuristic device. Indeed all our ideas are based upon paradigms. I myself choose reason for method rather than miracles and Free Will.

Serendipper
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by Serendipper » Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:08 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:57 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:42 am
I think that's an immoral diagnosis.
Dogmatically.
What were the odds that I knew you'd say that?
We can't discuss literally everything in one comment, there is such a thing as context boundary. You say I was dogmatic, immoral. Okay I say you take concepts from different contexts and mix them together, to refute things I didn't write. And you don't actually provide good explanations for what you claim.
But you can't substantiate that from any context. Show me where I've mixed things up to answer questions you didn't ask while, presumably, not answering the question you did ask.

I can substantiate your immorally disregarding when I've made a good point by putting the evidence on exhibition. When I made an argument for the silliness of MWI, you say that it further grounds your belief, which is precisely what has become known as "The Backfire Effect" which is a type of cognitive dissonance involving the fight or flight mechanism where people who have their beliefs challenged actually dig in and become more certain of their belief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y

That's the first thing I thought after I had written a big paragraph illustrating the silliness of MWI to which you replied that it strengthened your belief in MWI... "well that backfired... this guy must be dogmatic". Then you say "why not have infinite universes" or "why do we need energy for a universe" and other graspings at straws to find something to salvage the theory.

That's fine if you feel passionate about the theory, but you can't dogmatically dismiss my points and then claim I'm the one mixing things up and drawing from different contexts to answer questions you didn't ask.
What is the guiding mechanism that determined the subject/object relationship? Was it discovered or planned? Did it just so happen to work that way or was it made to work that way? Duality was the first truth discovered; it had to be because everything is based on that. True/false, on/off, plus/minus. Why would it be any other way?

From there it was an evolutionary process of what worked, worked and what didn't, fell apart and ceased existence. Maybe there were competing trialities or quadalities that didn't compete as well. Maybe instead of charge being divided into 2, there was plus, minus, and something else and that just didn't work.

So once duality was the dominant form, it became the environment that selected what came next: matter/antimatter, positive/negative, up/down.

Matter that didn't attract other matter did not work; it died out and ceased existence. Matter that had gravity worked and became dominant.
You are totally mixing together human-made dichotomies with naturally occuring pairs like matter-antimatter.
Are you asserting matter/antimatter exists or are you not? What about electron/positron?

Do magnets have poles or do they not?

Image
This is one of the biggest philosophical mistakes. Fundamentally speaking there are no dichotomies like subject/object or true/false.
If there is no such thing as true/false, then how do you know you are speaking any sense? You've just undermined everything you have ever said or ever will say because there is no such thing as true/false.

If there is no subject/object, then who are you speaking to and who is speaking?
Back in the day they "discovered" this absolute "truth",
If it's absolutely true that there is no truth, then it's not absolutely true.
and Western philosophy got based on it, which is why it's breaking down now.
No clue what you're on about.
There is absolutely no evidence for a subject/object division in physics.
That's not a true statement since there is no truth.
But you are taking massive leaps of faith. Why do things come in pairs in our universe in the first place?
Massive leaps of faith?!? Umm either the light is on or it is off. There cannot be a 3rd state. What? Half-on? Half-on is still on.
Existence/nonexitence. We can't have half-existence.
Being/nonbeing, +/-, N/S, yes/no, true/false, male/female, yin/yang, all fundamental to nature. You are the one making an extraordinary claim insisting it's not.
That seems to arbitrary, maybe that too is already one of infinitely many possibilities.
Infinite possibilities is nonsense.
Maybe in other universes it does come in 3s or 4s or not a whole number. Or is a chaotic mixture of completely random things.
Random things? I thought the point of conjuring the other universes was to get rid of randomness. Now you're suggesting randomness exists in those universes, but not ours?
To me, natural pairs of 2 seems to be a minimalistic construct that's all. So it already might be an end product of a large, possibly infinite "iteration".
No such thing as infinite.
So you take the already unexplained "duality"
Seems obvious: if you have 1, nothing can be observed because there is nothing to observe. 2 is the next number in line.
and then use backwards thinking from there. "Duality" becomes an actor that makes selections. You give it a power it can't have. What does that even mean?
Well, we have things orbiting and things being orbited. That's 2. We have a division of charge into plus and minus. That's 2. Everything resulted from that "power" that duality found laying around.
What does it mean "what worked"? Who or what decides what works?
The environment dictates what works.
Why does our current universe "work" and other universes don't?
What other universe?
You aren't actually explaining anything.

Yes I am. You aren't paying attention. Either that of you're immorally dismissing arguments because you must have MWI to work. Where does your deficiency lie: morality or acumen?
Or you use what is to be explained, as explanation.
Where? Baseless claim.
Why would the physical world care about what should become dominant?
It doesn't.
Who knows how many iterations it took just to get that far. Maybe the universe formed and fell apart 10^300 times before the first atom was formed. Who could say?
Wait.. but that IS a multiverse to me. Then what are you arguing against?
What?!? You can't tell the difference between existence of a species of a thing then its consequential extinction vs all possibilities happening in other universes? The dinosaurs went extinct and it didn't require another universe for it to happen; it all happened within this universe.

If I have to chuck a basketball 10 times before I get it through the net, it didn't require 9 other universes. If the atom required 10^300 tries before it finally formed, it didn't require 10^300-1 other universes.
Why are we programmed to die? Well probably because the first lifeforms that could reproduce also didn't die, so they ate all their food and went extinct. Now we need a lifeform that manages to figure out, by chance, how to reproduce and also have a finite lifespan in order to be in harmony with their finite environment.
Maybe the first lifeforms were immortal, and so death had to be invented for evolution to take place. That lead here. But again you are using the end result to explain the end result. The question is, WHY this and only this end result out of the infinite possibilities?
Because that is what worked based on the environment that had previously worked based on another environment that previously worked based on another and another and another environment until we work back to the fundamental thing that must have been eternal, which is absence of time, not infinite amounts of it. There are no infinite possibilities.
But by your reasoning and MWI, the organisms that didn't survive went to live in other universes. And in those universes, the organisms that didn't survive went to live in yet other universes. The triality that didn't happen here, happened in another universe. The matter that doesn't have gravity must exist in another universe.
Okay first, you don't seem to understand that the MWI multiverse only describes all the possible outcomes of OUR universe.
Why is that? Why wouldn't it also apply to other universes? Why should we have randomness in other universes but not our own? And the reason we have other universes is so we don't need randomness in this one? Why not do away with the other universes and just have randomness in this one instead of 10^300 other universes with randomness and no randomness in this one?
Second, the MWI comes in variations. Some people literally break up the universal wavefunction into separate, branching universes, as I said I think that's crazy. I don't see any separation inside the universal wavefunction, so I think we see the sum of it from our point of view.
It doesn't matter about various interpretations. What's relevant here is the elimination of randomness and to do that you'd need infinite universes to account for every seemingly random event that has ever happened. Plus those universes would also have to eliminate randomness for the same reason that you're insisting randomness can't exist in this one, so it would balloon out to infinity quick.
Third, you can't "go" from one universe to another as far as I know.

Then how did the other possibilities that could have happened in this universe get to the other universe?
And surviving or not surviving per se has nothing to do with anything,
"Surviving" is just a manner of speaking.
Why have it that way instead of things just ceasing to exist?

If I flip a coin and it lands heads, why does it have to land tails in another universe? Why can't that outcome simply not manifest?
Again, what is this magic or hidden mechanism you keep referring to that decides what should and shouldn't exist?
Nothing. I've explained it several times now, then you come back and say I answered questions you didn't ask or I'm talking out of context.

If I flip a coin and it lands heads, you say it was determined by: the way it was flipped, the starting position, the density and turbulence of the air, the unbalanced proportion of the coin on the atomic level, etc. So what determines those things? Eventually we'll get down to the quantum level and now what? What determines the quantum variables that determined the coin flip? Are you going to assert a new kind of influence? Ok, fine, but what determines that? Eventually you'll either have to stop conjuring new influences or you will have to continue forever. Either way, there is no escaping the fact that absolutely nothing is the ultimate determining factor for why the coin landed one way or the other.

Either there is an ultimate fundamental influence or it is part of an infinite chain of influences.

If there is an ultimate fundamental influence, then what influences that? Nothing. Because there is nothing more fundamental.

If there is an infinite chain of influences, then you can never come to a fundamental cause. Since no cause could ever be identified, then it had no cause since it would take an eternity to find the cause, which could never ever be accomplished since you could always add another influence no matter where you decide to stop and you could never reach eternity anyway. Something that can never be realized cannot be said to exist.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free will is real

Post by bahman » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:35 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:32 am
So the difference between the voluntary and involuntary is automatic?
I mean, voluntary is up to you and it is not automatic whereas involuntary is automatic.
Serendipper wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:32 am
What is the distance in time from the moment you decide to breathe until the moment the decision is automatic? If the answer is zero, then there is no distinction because they are the same continuous event. If the answer is not zero, then give me the answer in seconds please. You are the one claiming that the voluntary is different than the involuntary, so you have to show a discontinuity between the events in order to call them separate events. And after you do that, then you have to show how one event influences the other.
As I mentioned you need to scatter your mind else from breathing or focus on something voluntary in order to allow that breathing happen automatically. Breathing happen automatically as soon as you manage to scatter your mind or focus on something else. This of course happens at the moment you decide.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free will is real

Post by bahman » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:37 pm

commonsense wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:14 pm
If we are to assume that there is a point, the so-called decision point, in which thought does not exist, then we can just as easily conclude that a decision is not made until an instant after your decision point.
That is correct.
commonsense wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:14 pm
If a decision is attempted at the point before thought exists, it would be a belief, not a decision.
That is incorrect.

jayjacobus
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re:

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:58 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:03 pm

There are a number of instances where neuroscience has shown behavior occurs without any thought. Like a person who hit their thumb with a hammer, they will move their hand away after the hit.
Many functions in the body are biomechanical. They occur without thought. The flash reaction to pain may be biomechanical but that does not mean that every action is biomechanical. In fact some actions follow interpretation and intention. Those actions are not automatic.

Reaction to pain in the thumb is not interpreted nor intentional but it is logical even though it is not interpreted nor intentional. Biomechanical serves the body in a logical way.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Hey, Jay...

Post by henry quirk » Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:08 pm

...that quote ain't mine.

jayjacobus
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Hey, Jay...

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:01 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:08 pm
...that quote ain't mine.
Oh.

Sorry.

Never mind.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Don't apologize, Jay...

Post by henry quirk » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:52 pm

...your point is valid even if your quote attribution wasn't.

Atla
Posts: 515
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by Atla » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:59 am

Serendipper wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:08 am
But you can't substantiate that from any context. Show me where I've mixed things up to answer questions you didn't ask while, presumably, not answering the question you did ask.
For example you mix up QM observation with the everyday use of observation. Do you have any idea how wrong that is?
You don't differentiate between fundamentally different uses of duality, and you don't have the faintest idea that the everyday use of object/subject is according to physics just a human-made convention, a way of thinking.
You don't understand various uses of multiverse, and you don't understand at all what MWI refers to, it's an interpretation of QM.
You don't differentiate between a circle, a concept of a circle, a circular dimension, a string from string theory, a spiral, and a numeric representation of pi. And you have absolutely no comprehension of the possibility of circular dimensions - you only think in infinite linearity.
You don't understand the difference between mass-energy equivalence and the universe being "fueled".

Etc. I never wrote most of the things you tried to disprove.
If there is no such thing as true/false, then how do you know you are speaking any sense? You've just undermined everything you have ever said or ever will say because there is no such thing as true/false.
We can never be completely sure of anything. That's as basic in philosophy as it gets, and you hear this for the first time? Are you one of those people with absolute certainty?

Overall, all you do is backwards reasoning: we are here now, so this is the only way that the one universe could have happened. You add some magical iteration to it to make your argument look smarter. I swear this is even worse than believing in God, those people at least are trying to solve the improbability issue.

I don't have the patience or the time to wade through all your ad hoc nonsense. I don't think that makes me immoral or lack acumen. I think you are projecting big time here. Maybe you are immoral, ignorant and intellectually dishonest, so you accuse others of being immoral. And you do it with a "passion".

Just admit it, you actually believe that existence is one big conscious something, that "strives" to become more and more complex.

Serendipper
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by Serendipper » Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:24 am

Atla wrote:
Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:59 am
Serendipper wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:08 am
But you can't substantiate that from any context. Show me where I've mixed things up to answer questions you didn't ask while, presumably, not answering the question you did ask.
For example you mix up QM observation with the everyday use of observation. Do you have any idea how wrong that is?
No I guess I don't. What's the difference?
You don't differentiate between fundamentally different uses of duality,
The only difference I see is systematic: yes/no or no/yes. What other fundamental difference is there?
and you don't have the faintest idea that the everyday use of object/subject is according to physics just a human-made convention, a way of thinking.
Well physics is a human invention; a way of thinking, along with language and math.
You don't understand various uses of multiverse, and you don't understand at all what MWI refers to, it's an interpretation of QM.
I quoted wikipedia, so if you have a definition that is different from what Max Tegmark propagates, then you'd have to define it for me since you cannot assume I'd already be privy to your personal interpretation.
You don't differentiate between a circle, a concept of a circle, a circular dimension, a string from string theory, a spiral, and a numeric representation of pi.
What sort of differentiation would you like? Circles likely cannot exist in reality because there is no substrate on which to draw a perfect arc, so the only circles that can exist are conceptualizations. A circular dimension is pure speculation and PI cannot be represented numerically.
And you have absolutely no comprehension of the possibility of circular dimensions - you only think in infinite linearity.
Infinite linearity and circular dimension is the same thing. I told you why: a circle with infinite radius is a straight line without end (infinite linearity).
You don't understand the difference between mass-energy equivalence and the universe being "fueled".
No, you said "Why would a universe need energy?" To which I replied "wtf" essentially.
Etc. I never wrote most of the things you tried to disprove.
Apparently myself along with everyone else on the planet is ignorant of only what you know, so please enlighten everyone by elaborating on the above-mentioned.
If there is no such thing as true/false, then how do you know you are speaking any sense? You've just undermined everything you have ever said or ever will say because there is no such thing as true/false.
We can never be completely sure of anything. That's as basic in philosophy as it gets, and you hear this for the first time? Are you one of those people with absolute certainty?
Not usually, but you're denying even subjective truth because you said "there is no such thing as true/false".
Overall, all you do is backwards reasoning: we are here now, so this is the only way that the one universe could have happened. You add some magical iteration to it to make your argument look smarter. I swear this is even worse than believing in God, those people at least are trying to solve the improbability issue.
It would be more convincing if you could provide substantiation rather than ad hominous diagnoses.
I don't have the patience or the time to wade through all your ad hoc nonsense.
Because you're too busy spewing it? Your whole post was a complete waste of space.
I don't think that makes me immoral or lack acumen.
I do.
I think you are projecting big time here. Maybe you are immoral, ignorant and intellectually dishonest, so you accuse others of being immoral. And you do it with a "passion".
Blah blah, let the audience be the judge.
Just admit it, you actually believe that existence is one big conscious something, that "strives" to become more and more complex.
Yes something like that.

gaffo
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by gaffo » Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:41 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:24 pm
We are all sure about the fact that thought precedes act and the fact that they are different. There is therefore a point in which there is neither thought nor act. Lets call this point the decision point. This point cannot be affected by thought because otherwise it is a part of chain of thought. Therefore decision is free.
you asked me my view upon your assirtion(sp) of the above concept (i a prior post by me from you - thanks for reply BTW).

I re-read your original thread post - the above - because I'm honored that you replied to me and also asked me my opinion about your above post.

I in turth I don't think I "get it".....not sure what your views are.

Mine is that thought precedes action - but that thought "pops into one's head" (from what/where - who knows but not from the mortal rational being (you and me). the latter actions related to those said thoughts are indeed constrained within both Freewill and animal instinct (i personally think "Freewill" is hubris, and so is at most 1/9th of actions from thoughts (the latter is generated from where - the self? - outside of the self - who knows, either way one is not in control of thoughts prior to thinking them so per "thoughts" freewill is bullshit.

that leaves actions from prior thoughts ----which IMO man being an animal acts in accordance and 9 out of 10 time via instinct (emotions) - and so if at most 1 out of 10 times man acts outside of instinct, in general that means man has no freewill in the pragmatical sense.

all the above is IMO - thanks for reply btw.

KyCoon
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:02 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by KyCoon » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:29 am

Simply put, "Free will" is the ability of humans to choose between two different options. So it is real. We all choose what we want to become right?

Belinda
Posts: 1844
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free will is real

Post by Belinda » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:50 am

KyCoon wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:29 am
Simply put, "Free will" is the ability of humans to choose between two different options. So it is real. We all choose what we want to become right?
Slaves?

Diseased?

Indoctrinated?

Babies and young children?

Bad parenting?

Poverty and bad food?

Too much money?

Learning difficulties?

Lack of educational facilities?

No sewerage system where you live?

Raped?

Orphaned?

Oppressive regime?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:59 pm

No, we largely have no choice over circumstance, but we always have choice in how we respond to circumstance.

Not an item on your list sez diddly about 'choice'...you describe circumstance only.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests